Is a woman's face 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered)?

The Shaykh: Yes, what is your question?

The questioner: My question is about Abu Ahmad or Abu 'Abdullah... correct.

Another questioner: Yes.

The questioner: But he didn't answer us. We have a question regarding the hijab of the woman. It is said that there is weakness in some hadiths, such as the hadith of Asma'.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner: I want you to clarify regarding the woman whether her face is 'awrah (the part of the body that must be covered) or not?

The Shaykh: This is an issue we have discussed in detail in the book on the etiquette of the Muslim woman's hijab. The edition we are currently preparing contains a response to the shaykhs (scholars or teachers) who are enthusiastic about this issue in a way that is not scholarly, but rather an emotional enthusiasm. There is no text in the Book or the Sunnah that obligates the woman to cover her face and hands; rather, there is what encourages her to cover her face and hands as a recommendation (mustahabb), not as an obligation. In my opinion, those who argue for the obligation of covering the woman's face and hands are actually addressing this issue with emotions, as many people do when they address certain issues without relying on the Book and the Sunnah. You will find, for example, some of the elders addressing the issue with 'ilm al-kalam (speculative theology), which we agree with them in opposing. But perhaps they did not realize that 'ilm al-kalam is not limited to creed; it also enters into fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). Because what is the meaning of 'ilm al-kalam? It means random speech with no evidence from the Book and the Sunnah. There is no difference between such speech being in creed or in fiqh, or in morals, or in behavior, or similar matters. The only difference is that 'ilm al-kalam in creed is more harmful than 'ilm al-kalam in fiqh. If the people had a definitive proof on the matter, none of them would need to say, "How can it be said that it is not obligatory to cover the woman's face? The woman's face is the most beautiful part of her; it is the face." This is 'ilm al-kalam. Why do they resort to such speech that can be countered and opposed with the same? And I did so when one of them says, "The most beautiful thing in the woman is her face." For whom? For the men, without doubt. And I say, the most beautiful thing in the man for the woman is what? It is the same face. There is no difference between this and that. So, does this logic lead us to cover our faces before women so that they are not tempted by us, as they say women should cover their faces so that we are not tempted by them? This is not logic. Sound logic is to submit to the Lord of the Worlds: . Therefore, this philosophy must be set aside, because such a philosophy will be met with its like, as you heard. This is incorrect, but that is also incorrect, and what follows from it is incorrect. And what is incorrect, its consequence is false, so it is false. So we leave this philosophical, logical speech and say: .
There is nothing in the Book or in the Sunnah, absolutely nothing, that obligates the Muslim woman, even if she were the most beautiful woman in the entire world, to cover herself. However, what is better for her and more honorable is that she cover her face and also cover her hands. This is indicated by his statement (peace be upon him): . The implication of this hadith is that a woman who is not a mahram wears a niqab, and a woman who is not a mahram wears gloves. It is known that gloves, if I may use the expression, are coverings for the hands; we call them "kuff" in Syria. In any case, covering the woman's face has a basis, and covering the hands has a basis. But the issue is not here. I dedicated a specific chapter in that book explaining the legitimacy of a woman covering her face and covering her hands. But the issue is whether it is obligatory for her? The answer is no. We have many, many proofs, and they have no proof, not even one, absolutely. We have the hadith of the Khath'am woman, which we hear a more astonishing answer to every day. The last thing I heard on the radio was that one of the broadcasters said: "This Khath'am woman, and I think you all know the hadith of the Khath'am woman, is a woman who performed Hajj with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). After stoning the pillars on the Day of Sacrifice, she stood before the Messenger (peace be upon him), and his companion was al-Fadl ibn Abbas, the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) cousin. She said: 'O Messenger of Allah, my father is an old man who cannot stay on the mount; he leans due to his old age. Should I perform Hajj on his behalf?' He said: . 'And al-Fadl was looking at her, and she was looking at him. She was beautiful, and al-Fadl was handsome.' What was al-Fadl looking at? One of them said long ago, and perhaps he retracted: he was looking at the blackness of her clothing, her jilbab. Does this tempt a man? No. The last thing I heard on the radio a month ago or less was: 'There is no proof in the hadith that the woman was uncovering her face.' This is a return to that previous statement. So what was al-Fadl looking at? The blackness of her jilbab. And here is the point. He said: 'And if we assume she was uncovering her face, that is because she did not know that the woman's face is an awrah.' Allahu Akbar! A student of knowledge is ashamed before the general public to say such a thing, knowing that the incident occurred in the sight of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). How can he say she did not know, so she was uncovering? What is the function of the Messenger (peace be upon him)? Is it not conveying the message? Is it not that the Messenger does not remain silent? An ordinary scholar among the scholars of the Muslims is not allowed to remain silent. And I said to some of them: 'What would you do, O Shaykh, if your wife was in Hajj, in Hajj where the woman in ihram does not wear a niqab, as we said earlier in the hadith, so she must uncover her face? If she stood before a man, your wife, what would you do with her? Would you leave her uncovering her face while you believe that uncovering this face is haram, or would you order her to cover her face?' He is at a loss for an answer, because if he says one or the other, his error becomes apparent. If he says, 'I order her to cover her face,' we say to him, 'Why did the Messenger not order her to cover her face?' And if he says, 'I do not order her to cover her face,' then why do you say it is obligatory for her to cover her face? This is a scholarly discussion. If the scholars, let alone the students of knowledge, were to deal with issues without emotion, this reality would become clear and obvious to them. Covering the face is the best, but it is not obligatory, as proven by the fact that the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not order the Khath'am woman to cover her face. What do they say? And this one will now say what he heard from those people. What do they say? 'As our friend wanted to say, she was in ihram, and it is not permissible for a woman in ihram to cover her face?' We say this is an error, and they know it. Our friend may not know, because he is a student of knowledge like me, but those are scholars and muftis who know. A woman covering her face in Hajj has two states: a state where it is not permissible for her, and another state where it is permissible for her. The first state where it is not permissible for her is tying the niqab, tying the handkerchief; there is no difference. Tying it here and letting it fall on the face, or tying it under the eyes, this is the niqab. This is what the Messenger (peace be upon him) said about: . This covering is not permissible; that is, direct covering of the face is not permissible. The second covering is permissible, and they know it. I hope our brother, our imam here, will know that if he did not know before. If he knew before, let him now conclude that their argument and their refutation of the hadith of the Khath'am woman is in the same position as the followers of taqlid who reject the texts of the Book and the Sunnah out of attachment and fanaticism to their madhabs. The second covering is called "sadal," and this is mentioned in the Sunnah. Asma' bint Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated to us and said: . The jilbab is dragged like this from above the head and let down; it is not tied. This tying is not permissible. 'We let it down over our faces, and we were in ihram, going for Hajj, in ihram. So when a group of men passed by us, "we let it down over our faces."' So why do they say that she was in ihram, so it is not permissible for her to cover her face? It is not permissible for her to wear a niqab on her face, but it is permissible for her to let it down over her face. So if covering the face were obligatory for the woman, we would have seen the Messenger (peace be upon him) tell her to do what Asma' and the women who were with her did, without the Messenger (peace be upon him) ordering them, because they knew that covering is better, as we said earlier. How did this clear uncovering happen? And it was not uncovering by an ugly, deformed woman whom the young men had no desire for, but she was a beautiful woman, and a handsome, beautiful young man was looking at her, who was al-Fadl ibn Abbas. That is: the Shaytan began to enter between him and her. This is the place of fitnah, and this is the obligation they claim. The Messenger should have said to the woman: 'Cover your face, O woman.' But the Messenger did not do any of that. Rather, he took al-Fadl's face and turned it to the other side. Look at how he did not say to the woman: 'Cover, save us from your evil, O woman in ihram.' The Messenger did not say this. Rather, he said to his cousin al-Fadl: 'Turn your face away from her.' And this is the realization of: . So, by Allah, if it were obligatory for the woman to cover her face, is there a more precise and more tempting situation than this situation where covering the face is obligatory? I do not think so. Why did the Messenger (peace be upon him) not order it? The answer comes: she was in ihram. We say: even if so, because a woman in ihram is not allowed to not cover her face with sadal. No, it is permissible for her to put that on, but it is not permissible for her to wear a niqab. So your question is like their question, and it is not applicable at all. The Messenger (peace be upon him) did not order this woman to let it down over her face. And this is a proof and an acknowledgment from the Messenger, and a decisive proof. Because some of them, unfortunately, and I have refuted this group, we brought them hadiths, including: , and so on. If this woman was a proof that she was uncovering her face, how could the narrator be able to describe her cheeks as "safa' al-khadayn," meaning a darkness with yellowness, "safa' al-khadayn"? How was he able to know the color of this woman's cheeks? What did they say? They said, as our friend said before, 'Maybe, maybe this was before the revelation of the verse of hijab.' We said: 'Put your "maybe" at that star.' All the hadiths are consecutive in that the women in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) were of two types: a type that covers the face, and this is the best, and a type that uncovers the face, and this is permissible. And we provided proof for that with many, many hadiths. The most important and strongest of them, first in the clarity of their indication, is the hadith of the Khath'am woman, and second in that they cannot say their previous statement, 'Maybe this was before the revelation of hijab.' This was at the end of the life of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).

The questioner : They also answered that by saying, 'Maybe she was one of the old women who do not hope for marriage, and it is permissible for them to wear the khimar.'

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar! I seek refuge in Allah from being overly meticulous. Is it reasonable that al-Fadl was almost tempted by an old woman?

The questioner : No, no, this is not the other one. We mean the one who was at the Eid. We mean the one with the dark cheeks.

The Shaykh : The one with the dark cheeks. I made a mistake. Maybe she was... what? One of the old women? And maybe this is not in its place grammatically?

The questioner : They said, 'What is not touched by probability is not valid for argumentation.'

The Shaykh : Okay, and the hadith of the Khath'am woman.

The questioner : The Khath'amiyyah: various opinions have been stated regarding this. I would like, by Allah, to sit with you in private to discuss this topic.

The Shaykh : And more than that.

The questioner : No, by Allah, this is not sufficient for this topic, frankly. I see that many of our brothers agree with us on this, right or not, brothers?

Another questioner : Yes, if Allah wills.

The questioner : Because nowadays, uncovering the face among many women leads to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation); the woman goes out and does this and that, wears red and yellow, and so on, while wearing this scarf and this... and calls her state "wearing the shari'ah." This does not prevent young men, especially in this time, from looking at her. Many say: if we adopted the principle that says, "Averting harm takes precedence over seeking benefit," and the one that says, "What is necessary for the completion of an obligatory act is itself obligatory"?

The Shaykh : All this talk is poetic, no offense. If you stood before the hadith of the Khath'amiyyah, all these possibilities would fall apart.

The questioner : Fine, let us have a meeting in private, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : I do not think a meeting beyond this is needed. What is your answer to the hadith of the Khath'amiyyah?

The questioner : I say what I say. You know what the scholars said about this?

The Shaykh : I know, and that is why I am answering. Who am I answering? It is not about you; I am answering the scholars. What has become clear to you?

The questioner : By Allah...

The Shaykh : By Allah, what is the benefit of meeting if this explanation in one hadith is not convincing? What is the benefit of meeting?

The questioner : You taught us that we do not look at an issue through a single hadith; rather, we gather all the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah and look at them in their totality to extract the clear evidence from them.

The Shaykh : This is correct.

The questioner : Yes, and consequently, we have discussed the issue from one or two angles, but many angles remain where opinions have been stated and responses have been given.

The Shaykh : No problem.

The questioner : It is necessary to look at all these matters.

The Shaykh : I do not disagree with this, but we are now facing one hadith. What is the answer?

The questioner : I say that looking at all the evidence remains.

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, I am telling you, yes, it remains.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : But we agree that looking at the remaining evidence is what remains.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : What is the answer to the hadith of the Khath'amiyyah?

The questioner : The answer to the hadith of the Khath'amiyyah: I am convinced by your statement that, for example, if this matter were forbidden, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would have ordered her to cover her face.

The Shaykh : This negates all the evidence you want to research.

The questioner : If Allah wills.

The Shaykh : Listen, listen to what I am saying.

The questioner: Go ahead.

The Shaykh : This negates all the evidence you want to research. As for my point of view, the matter is very easy, but for you and those like you, there is a bit of difficulty. However, this difficulty is overcome by being free from customs, traditions, and unbridled emotions that have no limits. This statement negates all the evidence. Why? Because those evidences either indicate the obligation of a woman covering her face without fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), and a fortiori with fitnah, or they do not indicate it, right or not?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : There is a saying in Syria: "If it does not come with you, come with it." You may not come with me, and I say "may" or "perhaps," and there may not be an occasion, but suppose you came with me. All the evidence you point to and say needs research, I come with you on it. I would say it indicates the obligation of a woman covering her face. Good.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : How does this meet with that?

The questioner : They do not meet. A thing and its opposite do not meet at the same time; they do not coexist.

The Shaykh : So why do we meet? To study those evidences.

The questioner : I have no problem. I deny... as, for example, a student of knowledge, but we need, for example, to reach the truth, if Allah wills. We want nothing else.

The Shaykh : My dear, we have reached the truth and we are done. We told you the Syrian saying: "If it does not come with you, come with it." I came with you now. Instead of meeting for an hour or two to discuss each evidence individually, I assume now that the evidences...